- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:49:13 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, dbaron@dbaron.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > I think there are some objective criteria that can help > determine the scope of risk ... > 3) Is the codec old enough that any essential patents > must be expired? [The only video Yes answer was for H.261. There were no audio Yes answers, but MP3 might be before the specification is final.] So why not just use these two as the baseline, at least until the lawyers clear something newer? That way there is at least a fallback which is interoperable. Are the codecs themselves so bulky that including an extra -- even one without patents -- is unacceptable? Or is there a fear that this will become the normal case instead of the fallback, even if something better is available? -jJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 04:49:23 UTC